Finally! Forensic Election Audit in Maricopa County (AZ) Begins Next Week

originally posted by: xuenchen
Has anyone figured out how they audit signature verifications yet ? 😃

I'm hoping intentional fraud, in addition to outright neglect, can be proven without going too deep into the technical weeds.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: dragonridr

As far as the audit it's pointless it changes nothing no matter the outcome. All that will happen is one group will think it was lies the other facts, Doesn't matter what they find people won't believe them. If they find nothing people won't believe them and simply claim they missed stuff.

I'm so freaking tired of people being lumped together in a big box and labeled in the worst ways.

Yes, of course some people will think and believe whatever they want to believe. People already think and believe whatever they want to believe. Some people will ALWAYS think and believe whatever they want to believe. Yes, even when facts and reality tell them different. It is what it is. And they all have their own reasons for doing so.

But not ALL PEOPLE. Not yesterday. Not today. Not tomorrow.

You speak only for yourself. Whatever you want to think and believe about others you are obviously going to. Good to know. But you don't speak for me, and plenty of others, but since you think and believe you do, I'll just leave you to it. You don't need me or anyone else to do so.

No matter what outcome it won't change a single person's mind. If the audit finds nothing excuses will be made as to the reason why. If they find something the other side will claim the audit was biased since the others found nothing. No matter what it changes nothing for anyone.

That is why a Federal Judge will have to officially certify the final findings, even after the Arizona Senate has done so.

originally posted by: Arnie123
Once again, thanks Boadicea for your post and updates.

The amount of dissonance I've witnesses from several Users on ATS who "Claim" that no irregularities were present when we have HOURS of it for all to see and listen to.

Once again tho, if it isn't on any Liberal Media, the information isn't consumed, and avoided.

If Joe Biden were a halfway decent President, do you think the Left would have more confidence, and less fear?

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Arnie123
Once again, thanks Boadicea for your post and updates.

The amount of dissonance I've witnesses from several Users on ATS who "Claim" that no irregularities were present when we have HOURS of it for all to see and listen to.

Once again tho, if it isn't on any Liberal Media, the information isn't consumed, and avoided.

If Joe Biden were a halfway decent President, do you think the Left would have more confidence, and less fear?

No. They are out of touch with reality and they're never coming back.

Don't let proprietary digital voting disrupt democracy

....
Vulnerabilities explained
As much as different states want to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to implement online voting systems to some degree or another, there simply is no safe way to do so. The Observer explains that an online system has to take into account too many factors, from verifying identification to creating a secret ballot, to voting and getting that vote to the committee, and then verifying it again on the other end. To make it all secure is nearly impossible.

Security experts have long been expressing concern as well. After the 2016 US presidential elections, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) conducted elaborate research into the future of voting, and published a report called "Securing the Vote: Protecting American Democracy." The preface of this 157-page document states: "We were constantly reminded in news stories, by congressional hearings, and through reports from the intelligence community, of the extraordinary threat from foreign actors using cyber weapons and social media to manipulate the electorate, and to target our elections and cast doubt on the integrity of the elections process."

The report mentions that in 2016, the United States presidential election was targeted by a foreign government, and voter information was captured. While the exact consequences of this invasion are still largely unclear, the fear of surveillance by outside parties and the meddling with results is obviously justified. The NAS concludes that the current system is vulnerable to internal and external threats, and recommends verifiable paper ballots, audits, and clear distinctions between different elements of the process.

Having full transparency and control is the only way in which we can verify the legitimacy of elections. Transparency is currently best accomplished by individual paper balloting. We will get the closest to fair results by working with an analog system.

1 + 1 = 2

What's so proprietary about that ?

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: dragonridr

As far as the audit it's pointless it changes nothing no matter the outcome. All that will happen is one group will think it was lies the other facts, Doesn't matter what they find people won't believe them. If they find nothing people won't believe them and simply claim they missed stuff.

I'm so freaking tired of people being lumped together in a big box and labeled in the worst ways.

Yes, of course some people will think and believe whatever they want to believe. People already think and believe whatever they want to believe. Some people will ALWAYS think and believe whatever they want to believe. Yes, even when facts and reality tell them different. It is what it is. And they all have their own reasons for doing so.

But not ALL PEOPLE. Not yesterday. Not today. Not tomorrow.

You speak only for yourself. Whatever you want to think and believe about others you are obviously going to. Good to know. But you don't speak for me, and plenty of others, but since you think and believe you do, I'll just leave you to it. You don't need me or anyone else to do so.

It's not what I want to believe it's a reality the United States has clearly become an us or them country.

Ive seen the same things spun differently just depending on who is telling the story. This audit is a great example it accomplishes nothing however you have one group saying it will prove fraud occurred in the election another claiming it has already been done 3 times.

No matter what outcome it won't change a single person's mind.

Not a single person, so everyone is brainwashed ... wow

Sure are a bunch of lawyers and officials crying like little girls down there who think otherwise, why are they begging for it to stop...

originally posted by: Boadicea

If I give an answer, are you going to respect it and accept it? Or try to tell me what you think I really?

If you'd been following the thread, you would know exactly what my position is, which has been constant and consistent throughout.

I think, though i may be wrong, that the point of the question was to suggest that a reasonable person's "position" would have to shift if their allegations were proven baseless.

Only a sycophant would continue believing - anything at all - once proven meritless.

a reply to: alphabetaone

I think, though i may be wrong, that the point of the question was to suggest that a reasonable person's "position" would have to shift if their allegations were proven baseless.

Only a sycophant would continue believing - anything at all - once proven meritless.

Well, I would suggest that a reasonable person would know and understand that they cannot have a "position" unless and until they know the facts -- ALL the facts -- and can put the totality of evidence into proper context and perspective... so a reasonable person would in fact have no "position" to shift once the facts were presented.

Which is the position I have taken since the gitgo. There is proof out there. One way or another. And we want that proof. Then we will have a "position" on the matter. But for now, our only "position" is that we want the damn truth!!!

For example, I KNOW that votes were "stolen" via denying voters their legal right to a new ballot if they spoiled their first one, and second one. This isn't a guess or a suspicion on my part. There are news reports and court documents and witness testimony that tell us this happened. Because our County Recorder decided to ignore the law, and the Supreme Courts orders, to deny voters a new ballot.

This necessarily created additional adjudicated ballots, wherein an election worker voted for the voter. The election worker said, "this ballot is going for ____________. NOT the voter.

I know this resulted in an excessive number of ballots for adjudication... stolen votes... stolen from the voter and given to an election worker.

What I do not know is how many of those votes were attributed to the wrong candidate... I do not know which candidate may have benefited from wrongly attributed votes... I do not know if it changed the outcome of the election... I need an audit which actually matches the original ballot with the adjudicated ballot in order to know that.

So it doesn't matter if it's someone pretending to know there was wrongdoing, or someone pretending to know that there was cheating. Unless and until we have the final report, no one knows a damn thing.

So the TLDR of what you're saying here is that:

originally posted by: Boadicea
Unless and until we have the final report, no one knows a damn thing.

and to have a "position" one must:

originally posted by: Boadicea
Well, I would suggest that a reasonable person would know and understand that they cannot have a "position" unless and until they know the facts

.
.
.
Hence, your original assertion that:

originally posted by: Boadicea

If you'd been following the thread, you would know exactly what my position is, which has been constant and consistent throughout.

must be completely innaccutate due to your aforementioned:

originally posted by: Boadicea
Well, I would suggest that a reasonable person would know and understand that they cannot have a "position" unless and until they know the facts

because clearly

originally posted by: Boadicea
Unless and until we have the final report, no one knows a damn thing.

Do i have that about right?

BREAKING: GA JUDGE ALLOWS FURTHER SCAN OF MAIL-IN BALLOT INSPECTION IN FULTON COUNTY…GROUND ZERO OF ELECTION FRAUD…CASE COULD FLIP SENATE AND PRESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATION

This story is developing…

UPDATE 1115 EST – Judge orders ballots unsealed. Parties to appear at ballot storage location 10am May 28th. Ballots will be scanned at 600 dpi or higher. Protocol to be determined.

Regarding the arguments made to the judge:

In the hearing, lawyers for VoterGA.org described large discrepancies (21%) between the number of ballot batches reported by the GA Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger who certified the election, and the number of ballot batches actually provided by court-ordered access in the previous April hearing in the case.

GA SoS Raffensperger Amicus Brief Denying Election Fraud Doesn’t Hold Water, Is Riddled With Deceit

VoterGA.org has been examining the ballot images at a low resolution since the hearing in April, and declared they need the actual physical ballots to understand the number of counterfeit ballots certified.

Fulton County attorneys pushed for a sampling of the ballots instead of access to all of the ballots. They particularly objected to access to physical ballots.

I have to wonder how much collaborration and coordination is happening between the teams in the different states -- either directly or indirectly. It's been known that different states have different laws and processes and procedures, and each state would have to be looked at individually. But it's also been suspected/expected that any cheating would have similarities and commonalities, and each state could learn from each other.

The focus seems to be on adjudicated ballots. Good. And I'm not surprised. Adjudicated ballots are a problem. There should be no such thing as adjudicated ballots. No one should be deciding what someone else intended.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Oh how sad... now you have to nitpick and play semantics? Okay, let me clarify.

No one should have a "position" on the truth of the matter. No one can know what the truth is. So no reasonable person thinks they know if there was cheating. And no reasonable person thinks they know if there was not cheating.

So a reasonable person's position -- no matter what they suspect or fear or "believe" -- is that they do not and cannot know unless and until all the facts are known. And a reasonable person's position is to want the facts in order to determine the truth.

ETA: nevermind

Desperate times?

Suspicious White Powder Sent to Arizona Senate President Karen Fann, Who Authorized Ballot Audit

The Department of Public Safety made a visit to Arizona State Senate President Karen Fann's office Wednesday to investigate reports of an "unidentified white powder" that arrived at the office in a mailed letter.

DPS Public Information Officer Bart Graves confirmed in an email to Newsweek that, "on May 19 at approximately 1629 hours, DPS responded to the Arizona State Senate in response to a suspicious package call. The package was secured by DPS Hazardous Materials Response Unit and submitted to the DPS Crime Lab. Investigation continues regarding the package."

Graves did not release any details about what the package was, where it was found, nor what substance may have been found inside the package. Philipsen, however, said some tests were performed right there at the Senate building and came back "negative."

Neither party provided more information on what substances or compounds the mystery powder was being tested for, and if they found out what the powder actually was.

I would think they tested for ricin and/or anthrax... Those are the two most common toxic white powders anyway.

I'm glad it was negative and just a scare... this time... I hope it isn't a practice run/warning for a "next" time.

I have made my concern about AZ's adjudicated ballots quite clear, many times. Specifically, that denying voters' their legal right to a new ballot if the spoiled their first ballot essentially and effectively created excess ballots for adjudication. Other states also had excess ballots for adjudication, essentially and effectively created by the poor policies and procedures.

EXCLUSIVE: Voting Machine Systems Should Be Banned from US Elections Until the Highly Suspect “Adjudication Process” Is Defined and Corrected

Michigan
In Antrim County Michigan, Attorney Mathew Deperno noted that a setting in the voting machines in that county caused an excessive number of ballots to be forced to be reviewed through ‘adjudication’. What this means, is these ballots were sent somewhere to someone to review and determine the results of the election for these ballots.

The "setting" referred to above, specifically, is that the ballots were not aligned correctly with the machines, and the marking for votes for Trump were offset to such a degree that the machine could not "read" their ballot, and the ballot was sent to adjudication for an election worker to literally vote for the voter.

Nevada
We next found voting machines that were set at around a 70% adjudication rate in Clark County, Nevada. The election officials there just happened to report that the county had a near 70% adjudication rate in that county. These ballots in this county, which encompasses Las Vegas, were also sent somewhere for ‘adjudication’ where someone determines the votes for these ballots. Again, this setting was way too high and God only knows who was ‘adjudicating’ these results.

More than two-thirds of all ballots in the county were "adjudicated"... so an election worker "voted" for the voter. Literally. That's just not right.

Georgia
Also, the adjudication system in Dominion provides no data (or audit trail) to show who did the adjudication on a ballot. This weakness needs to be addressed in the voting machine systems.

No ability to track the adjudicated ballot. No accountability.

There is no place in our system for adjudicated ballots. Efforts should be put into making sure every voter's vote is clear and accurately counted. Not ways to circumvent the voter's vote.

Thanks for the info and updates!

originally posted by: carewemust
That is why a Federal Judge will have to officially certify the final findings, even after the Arizona Senate has done so.

Nope. The judiciary has no part in this.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: alphabetaone

Oh how sad... now you have to nitpick and play semantics? Okay, let me clarify.

Semantics is all we've got here, so yes....im going to play semantics.

Look, ive got no argument with you, unless you want to create one....the only reason i jumped back into this going nowhere thread was merely to provide what might be an alternative perspective as to the reason Byrd may have asked the question. But ya know what....enjoy your bubble....clearly the misery is yours and not mine.

originally posted by: alphabetaone
I think, though i may be wrong, that the point of the question was to suggest that a reasonable person's "position" would have to shift if their allegations were proven baseless.

Only a sycophant would continue believing - anything at all - once proven meritless.

And I'm sure you are fully supportive of the reverse of that... right?

a reply to: alphabetaone

So very noble of you... I'm touched.

But apparently I'm hopeless though. And I certainly don't want you to waste your time. Do what you gotta do!

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: carewemust
That is why a Federal Judge will have to officially certify the final findings, even after the Arizona Senate has done so.

Nope. The judiciary has no part in this.

Then what authority has to rule that Donald Trump actually won arizona, in order for ABC CBS CNN New York times Washington Post to report it?

That is the only way 80% of Americans will know what really happened.


Of course, if the auditors find there was no fraud, those media outlets will gleefully and gladly report it.

Looks like GA is opening it up again as well....

www.ajc.com...

Georgia is headed for another review of its presidential election results after a judge agreed Friday to unseal more than 145,000 Fulton County absentee ballots.

The details and timing of the review must still be determined. But the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the county want to scan and examine the ballots to determine whether they are legitimate.